Was he real person?
Yes. Repent.
No. A bunch of people on strange mushrooms invented him.
Probably one of the many apocalyptic preachers in Judea.
>>869463
Yes, but he was a shitskin and a mentally ill schizophrenic as well.
Then again, that description also applies to pretty much every other major religious founder (Moses, Zoroaster, Mohammed, Mani, Buddha, etc)
>>869470
>>869486
>>869494
>>869496
>>869498
Read more here
>This thread again
The real question you have to ask yourself is, does it matter? In the minds of billions of people he was, whether or not there was a guy named Yeshua in the 1st century is pretty inconsequential because for all intents and purposes he was.
Most historians would claim that, but the standards for claiming someone from that period was real are pretty low.
>>869463
No. Assbabies aren't real people.
>>869463
Possibly to some vague extent he may have existed. Probably only vaguely related to the biblical Jesus but there's a decent chance.
It's not like vague, historical Jesus is a particularly extraordinary claim.
But it's also not an extraordinary claim that he didn't exist.
There is no actual conclusive evidence that he existed though even when not requiring extraordinary evidence(I've gone through most of the commonly cited Christian copypasta. Most of it is bullshit and the most prominent ones, like Tacitus and Josephus, are doubtworthy because of very obvious changes made to the source documents in question.).
To claim in the absolute sense that he existed is not possible when debating honestly.
>>869474
>>869477
>>869563
This.
In reality, he was simply another preacher (they were a dime a dozen in 1st century occupied Judea). Maybe he did preach something that was relatively unique for the time, and this, coupled with a stroke of luck, led to a myth developing around him which came to be called Christianity.
In any case: not divine, not the son of God. Simply another man.
>>869463
He's a legend based on a real man.
>>869510
You mean the book no academic takes seriously?
>>869510
DUDE
>>869463
Jesus? Of course the most famous person in the history of the world is real.
>>869563
When you throw out the bible, and every historian but Philo, and claim there is no evidence, you are a lying sack of shit to say there is no evidence.
>>869992
You mean the academics God doesn't take seriously?
>>870018
How the fuck do you know what The Big Man thinks? Being a presumptuous cock and telling other people what He thinks or doesn't think is the height of hubris. Repent.
>>870034
Because He inspired men to write books about it.
Jeremiah 9
Thus says the Lord:
“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man glory in his might,
Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;
But let him who glories glory in this,
That he understands and knows Me,
That I am the Lord, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.
For in these I delight,” says the Lord.
Paul to Corinth
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” Therefore let no one boast in men.
>>870050
>what God thought was right 2000 years ago is right in the present
The Old and New Testament were vastly different and the cultural and temporal differences were smaller in comparison. Go suck it.
>>870055
God is eternal, the truth is the truth, and you are not ready to meet your Creator.
>>870050
God sounds like a horribly anti-intellectual regressive faggot if you put it like this
>>870058
He coded your DNA.
You don't impress Him.
>>870062
Should have given me a John Holmes dick and Clint Eastwood looks. He's kind of a cunt.
>>870066
Try to be grateful you're alive.
>>870068
Well if He/She's so tough, let Him/Her strike you down right now
>>870075
Have patience. Just because you have not yet been cast alive into a lake of fire for eternal torment does not mean that you will never be cast alive into a lake of fire for eternal torment.
>>870086
How's Heaven like? Is it worth all the fucking hassle here?
>>870086
hey chill the fuck up bro, take a walk or something
>>870089
God promises it's beyond your wildest dreams. God always keeps His promises.
>>870089
Here's what Paul said, after getting beaten, killed, shipwrecked, mocked, exiled, castigated, stoned, and ridiculed:
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
>>870050
>Smart people are really stupid! listen to me instead! cause God told me to tell you so!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t_bqqvJdik
>>870139
well how the fuck would he know what heaven is like
>>870174
Are you implying there should be some logical basis to the bibles assertions?
>>870183
yes
>>869477
Moses never existed.
Was Josephus reliable?
>>870812
What?
Of course
Jews have always been known as a trustworthy and honorable people
Look at how Josephus tricked all his friends into committing suicide and joined the enem-WAIT A MINUTE!
Yes, but he was not white and his name was Juan José.
>>870812
probably altered in the middle ages. The mention of Christ is probably orignial, but they added on some stuff that probably was not there
>>870009
JESUS TOTALLY WAS A MUSHROOM
>>869992
>muh academia
>>870812
What Josephus actually said
>"Jesus was a guy."
What the interpolation of Josephus added
>"WOW MAN JESUS WAS FUCKING RADICAL I'M NOT A CHRISTIAN BUT I TOTALLY WOULD BE ONE IF YOU NAHMSAYIN"
>>869463
If you consider Jews """people"""
Yes he was real. A carpenter that debated with jews in his spare time and got lynched by the Romans for heresy against the pagan faith.
You can debate whether he did miracles or not if you want.
>>871054
No, but Lenin was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExXDxpBFFR0
>>869648
It seems likely that it wasn't that it was unique, but that he hit exactly the right blend. Part of the reason he's hard to fit into the politics of Judaism at the time is he says a bunch of stuff that would identify him in part with almost all of the various different groups at the time.
The other thing was his style seems to be unique. He was a preacher, but he was also a miracle worker. That's pretty unique at the time. We have preachers, and we have miracle workers. We have few if any other preacher-miracle workers.
So if he WAS an invented personage, on top of the million other problems with that theory, someone came up with what looks like from the outside as a pretty winning formula to take all the popular stuff at the time, and combine it into an all-in-one-package.
>>869520
>The real question you have to ask yourself is, does it matter?
>In the minds of billions of people he was
You just answered your own question. This is the only reason why it matters - if he didn't exist, Christianity loses any grounding in reality its followers think it has.
>>870050
Read Jeremiah 8:8 and abandon your book of lies.
>>869477
>muh schizophrenia!!
You truly have no idea of the transcendent, do you?
>>871195
I made this just for this thread.
>>871225
Right, because legitimate spiritual experiences are ALL just voices talking to you in your head, right?
Come back after a 10 day vipassana retreat and tell me there's literally nothing to the transcendental.
>>871231
Dude you are angry at the wrong person.
>>871239
.. how so?
>>871250
Read the graph. It's mocking the idea that Schizophrenia is an even remotely plausible explanation for spiritual phenomenon, and that the very notion of it requires magical thinking.
At one point virtually all human culture was created by Schizophrenics, who continued to dominate art, philosophy and politics, right up to the modern era when, all of a sudden, Schizophrenia is a serious disability that inhibits your capacity to meaningfully interact with people.
>>871259
>At one point virtually all human culture was created by Schizophrenics
And that's EXACTLY what I'm saying is bullshit.
If you genuinely, honestly, unironically believe that all spiritual searching is just the result of people hearing voices in their head, then you have less than no clue about what actual spirituality is about.
Fuck, you don't even have to be a theist to understanding the extreme benefits of spirituality.
>>871259
>At one point virtually all human culture was created by Schizophrenics
You sure are making a lot of shit up. A crazy cult leader inspires others to do things. Jesus did not build western civilization or craft amazing works of art. People who believed his stories did that. Jesus was some loon who got executed by the Romans. His disciples did all the leg work.
>>871277
>You sure are making a lot of shit up.
The Vedas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the works of Homer, the I-Ching, The Tao te Ching, the Epic of Gilgamesh, fucking...virtually all Egyptian writings.
You really are building the case that early civilization was not centered around religious concepts?
>>871276
I'm saying it's worse that that. If someone genuinely, honestly, unironically believes this shit, they don't just not know anything about spirituality. They don't know what Schizophrenia is.
>>871293
>You really are building the case that early civilization was not centered around religious concepts?
That's not what you're arguing though. You're arguing that these works are all the result of schizophrenics, which is factually wrong.
>If someone genuinely, honestly, unironically believes this shit, they don't just not know anything about spirituality. They don't know what Schizophrenia is.
So what *is* schizophrenia then, friend?
>>870158
That was such a great show.
>>871293
The idea that all religious experiences are the product of schizophrenia is pretty sketchy. For instance perfectly healthy people have had visions and other experiences. Human are actually incredibly prone to them
>>871303
>That's not what you're arguing though. You're arguing that these works are all the result of schizophrenics, which is factually wrong.
That's what the claim results in, one way or another. Even if the Schizophrenics didn't write the texts themselves, or design the architecture, etc. They dictated what they would be about, and why things would be constructed and how society would be ordered. They're an illuminati lizard-alien elite literally responsible for everything everyone else does.
>So what *is* schizophrenia then, friend?
If I could definitively explain what Schizophrenia *is* I'd be collecting my nobel prize in medicine right now. But at least one of the diagnostic criteria is "a significant impact on social or occupational functioning for at least six months."
>>871319
I agree entirely. I'd go as far to say having visions and other experiences is actually a sign of a very healthy individual.
>>871329
You're just mad because you haven't had any visions yet.
>>871329
Understand, I am an atheist, but visons are something that can be induced in almost any mind, either through prayer, mediation, deprivation, distress, sleep disturbances, suggestion. The list of possibilities goes on and on. None of these requires a mental disorder
>>871322
Depends on what people from 2000 years ago meant by 'visions'. If they meant a conceptual idea, then you couldn't really say they were insane.
If however you mean full blown hallucinations, then that can be confidently called a mental disorder
if god travels at v=3e8 then how long would it have taken for his word to have reached humans from say, the furthest possible point in the universe (convert to years or Mya with significant figures please)
>>871367
Let me remind everyone of the struggle to surivive in early civilization
If you are operating with a lack of food, water, sleep, or any combination of such then hallucinations can be a symptom of the consequences of such
Paraphrased: hallucinations were likely much more prevalent in civilizations 2 millenia ago as compared to present
>>869520
It matters.
>>871379
Okay, lets just go with that for a bit. Just because it was more common does not make it in any way more legitimate or spiritual.
>>870016
only correct answer in the thread
It is not contested amongst any educated scholars that Jesus Christ lived on this earth.
There are compelling extra-biblical accounts of his life and resurrection.
>>871388
>trying this hard to convince yourself
>>871367
To say that visions are the result of a "mental disorder" is like saying that a broken leg is the result of a "physical disorder."
>>871388
You had me until the last sentence. Then you went full retard.
>>869648
>In any case: not divine, not the son of God. Simply another man.
I want anabaptists to kill themselves and leave right now.
>>869520
This.
Nietzsche, The Antichrist:
>At the bottom of Christianity there are several subtleties that belong to the Orient. In the first place, it knows that it is of very little consequence whether a thing be true or not, so long as it is believed to be true. Truth and faith: here we have two wholly distinct worlds of ideas, almost two diametrically opposite worlds—the road to the one and the road to the other lie miles apart. To understand that fact thoroughly—this is almost enough, in the Orient, to make one a sage. The Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows it. When, for example, a man gets any pleasure out of the notion that he has been saved from sin, it is not necessary for him to be actually sinful, but merely to feel sinful.
>>870089
>How's Heaven like?
Boring. Everything that makes life enjoyable on Earth is considered 'sinful' or 'excessive'. Heaven is literally praising God forever and ever. Imagine an Eternal church service, with no breaks.
Sounds terrible.
>>872373
>Sounds terrible.
You forgot the part where god mindfucks you into considering the eternal praise-singing downright orgasmic.
But yeah, it's fucking horrifying from a mortal's perspective.
>>871388
No there aren't.
There are two small statements in the writings of Josephus (one of which has been tampered with by Christian scribes in the Medieval era), written a few decades after the supposed death.
There is one (1) sentence in the writings of Tacitus, written 60 years after the supposed death of Christ.
There is a very vague reference in the Mar Saaba letter, and it is possible this doesn't even refer to Christ anyways.
That's literally it. There are no 'compelling extra-biblical accounts of his life and resurrection'. You Christfags will make up anything just to justify your own belief.
>>872395
Josephus also mentioned John the Baptist and Herods execution of him.
>>871083
>got lynched by the Romans for heresy against the pagan faith.
>lynched
>pagan faith
No.
>>872379
>>872379
I will never understand how Christians can actually believe God is 'perfect', yet reconcile such things such as the Creation (why would a perfect being create the physical world?) and the fact that Heaven is literally praising God for eternity (is he really 'perfect' when his idea of rewarding humans is making them praise him eternally? Sounds very vain and egoistic and self-centered: frankly, it sounds demonic, something that an evil entity would do).
>>872408
And what of it?
Besides, none of the extra-biblical accounts ever speak of any miracles or resurrection. All they say is 'a local man called Yeshua was killed for treason against the Romans/heresy against the Jews'. That's literally it.
>>872254
I swear Prots are borderline atheists. Some even outright atheists with their 'death of God' theology.
>>872428
Fuck off, Christcucks.
Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, you're all idiots for taking these mythical narratives literally and trying your hardest to ensure everyone lives and structures their lives around them.
>>872420
Establishes some historicity
>>872452
Establishes the historicity of Jesus as a preacher, which itself is not controversial. However, it does not establish any kind of divine nature or supernatural abilities.
>>872466
True but the absence of historicity would be worse than than the absence of miracle records. And this thread is about if Jesus was a real person.
I'd reform my religion around valuing the poor too if 95% of the empire was below the poverty line.
Like, holy shit. Romans put the economic class divisions today to shame.
That said, I would have thought Jesus would have made a statement about slavery. That was quite the oversight on his part given how slaves were all around him.
>>872395
>>872420
M8 Tacitus doesn't even speak of yeshua.
He doesn't even unambiguously refer to Christ.
The most optimistic way you can construe Tacitus sentence (from a Christian perspective) is that a single copy of the text containing the passage was almost immediately lost upon being written (Explaining the long time the text spent unquoted by literally anyone), but was still copied (Explaining the 8th century surviving copy we have) and preserved before being found again by Christians, remaining completely unaltered (Even though Christians would at that point have a prime opportunity to alter the text to suit their requirements).
There was also a typo (Chrestians has the 'e' replaced by an 'i' which has been proven) that was corrected by some unknown person so that the text could unambiguously refer to Christ as was originally intended(Since Christus in the text is represented as Chrstus).
>>871083
Heresy is a christian invention. The Romans gave no shits that Jews were being Jewish. If Jesus did exist he was probably killed for insubordination.
>>872515
Really? I had thought Tacitus mentioned a certain local Jew called 'Yeshua' being killed by "our prefect in the province, Pilate".
I might be wrong, though. Welp, if you're right, there are only two extra-biblical references to Christ, and neither of them are contemporary, and one of them is extremely vague.
Take that, Christcucks.
>>872538
He says "Christus" and seems to be reporting on what the Christians believe rather than having any knowledge of Jesus himself. He does mention Pilate though.
>>872567
It's still ambiguous (i/e) and the circumstances of the discovery detailed in my post(>>872515
) cast shade on whether or not more was changed from the original.
I think I'm right and didn't get anything wrong.
If there's anything to correct though that isn't bible focused then feel free to correct me.
>>870016
>Tasty
>>872528
Didn't they uphold Jewish law if the people appealed to them for justice. According to the NT the Jews saw Jesus was guilty of blasphemy
We should stop having this thread. Its discussed like every two days and it always ends with "yes there is limited historical evidence for christ" and atheists saying "its still stupid and it doesnt matter!1!"
>>872633
There's no evidence for Jesus Christ.
Flavius Josephus is a Flavian mythmaker, not an historian.
Neither Tacitus, Pliny the Younger nor Suetonius wrote about him. They wrote (in the second century mind you) about the existence of Christians, not Jesus.
This thread is made every day because of constant christian disinformation and straw manning. Your post is a great example of this.
>>872696
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
What was that you said again?
>>872696
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:
"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.
Hmmmm, can't quite hear you. What was that again?
>>872696
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):
"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."
"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."
Gosh, there's just this ringing in my ear of all of these historical quotes about Jesus being shoved in your face. Do you hear it yet?
>>872696
The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."
Wow, hey, look at that. More historical records about Jesus.
>>872719
In the first quote, it speaks of Jesus being crucified by Pilate.
That's Jesus.
In the second, it refers to christians worshiping Jesus as God. That's Jesus.
In the second to last, Chrestus is a reference to Jesus.
In the last, Yeshua is Jesus.
Jesus
Jesus
Jesus
Jesus
>>872699
>>872708
>>872711
>You
>Reading comprehension
Pick one
You're just confirming what I wrote
Also this Talmud story was added way later than the third century. You Christians are completely dishonest. You ''pious'' lies have no place in serious scholarship. Begone.
>>872770
No, it speaks of chrstus or chrestus, which means the good, the useful. It's a slave name. Written in the second century
The second only means than people in the second century worshiped some god named Jesus. Not a proof of the material existence of some Jesus of Nazareth
Third, Chrestus again. Not Christus. Again, written in the second century.
Talmud is no valid historical documentation if you care to read it. It is full of ridiculous stories without any historical validity. Yeshua sure belong in it. Written even later than all the others 3
>>872776
Denying facts is unhealthy.
>>872787
There are truly none so blind as those who will not see.
>>872799
Nice projection m8
>>872787
"History is written after the events occur."
/his/
>>872801
There's nothing from these three historians!
Quotes from those three historians
Christians BTFO again!
kek
>>872803
Z E R O
E
R
O
contradictions, and zero inconsistencies.
Your ignorance doesn't actually change reality.
>>872804
>after
It's all relative. Caesar wrote about his civil war while he was waging it. Jesus was invented and written about decades after his ''coming''. You're at your wits ends Galileans.
>>872699
Read this post >>872515
Tacitus is pretty sketchy. To believe that is hasn't been altered at all is basically retarded without additional confirmation of Tacitus because that's the line of reasoning you'd have to take to believe that.
>>872708
Only Christians are mentioned.
>>872711
Oh shit mate.
Only Christians.
Chrestus is not synonymous with Christus either, this same reason can be used to declare Tacitus useless even if no additional modifications are suspected.
>>872717
Don't drag the Talmud in here. That shit is young enough to have drawn inspiration from the Gospels in addition to just plain being the Talmud.
>>872809
>zero contradictions
Each of the four gospels records 4 different version of Christ's last words, which are fundamentally different from each other. The genealogy of Jesus is completely different in two books. Several miracles that should have been the same take place in different locations, with differing amount of people.
Historically, it is inaccurate. The entire census, for example. Never was anyone mandated to return to their hometown. The entire Barrabas story is a mistranslation: Barrabas means 'son of the father', meaning the crowd yelled for the release of Jesus 'son of God' (which is a Jewish term for anointed ones, not for actual literal sons of God), etc.
>>872807
>There's nothing from these three historians!
Strawman. There's nothing about the material existence of Jesus. You fail at basic reading comprehension.
>>872832
If you want to believe that all historical documents have been altered to mean something they didn't originally say, provide evidence of such alterations.
If the alteration still includes something about Jesus, then Josephus wrote something about Jesus. And he would be a hostile witness.
"a hymn to Christ" is Jesus. They're worshiping Jesus as God, because Jesus is God.
The new and mischievous religious belief is that Jesus rose from the dead. You cannot say the followers of Jesus are worshiping Jesus as God, if there is no Jesus to begin with. Another hostile witness.
A fourth hostile witness mentions Jesus. And by name.
The historicity of Jesus is settled. Only fools argue otherwise.
"There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically" (wiki)(since you people believe wiki over the bible, were Jesus is prominently portrayed.)
>>872835
So what? That is not a contradiction.
The genealogies are of two different people; of course they're different.
Many miracles were done many times in different places.
Do you know what a "contradiction" is?
>>872835
There's actually ample evidence of Quirinius' two censuses for Rome. Two commendations, one for the BC census, and one for the AD census.
Barabbas is not a real name; the man took the name "Son of God" onto himself. He was not Jesus. Pilate offered both Jesus and Barabbas for release. There were two people standing there.
You're an idiot.
>>872837
Except of course that Jesus existed, was crucified under Pilate, was worshiped by people who said He rose from the dead, etc., etc., etc.
Except that.
>>872861
>You cannot say the followers of Jesus are worshiping Jesus as God, if there is no Jesus to begin with
Yes you can. Are you a polytheist, do you believe every worshiped god on earth exists? People worships Dyonisios, even he didn't does not, and will not exists in the material world. Just like Jesus
>>872872
Magic thinking. Repeat it all day every day if you want, it won't make it true.
>>872861
>If you want to believe that all historical documents have been altered to mean something they didn't originally say, provide evidence of such alterations.
Tacitus has actual evidence that an e was replaced by an i.
There was slightly more space than would have been expected for that i which made it suspicious and when it was examined it was revealed that an e had been there originally.
The Tacitus account is derived from a singular, unquoted 8th century copy of a text that arrives to us through Christians.
There is a distinct chance it was altered further and that makes it doubtworthy if nothing else.
>"a hymn to Christ" is Jesus. They're worshiping Jesus as God, because Jesus is God.
>The new and mischievous religious belief is that Jesus rose from the dead. You cannot say the followers of Jesus are worshiping Jesus as God, if there is no Jesus to begin with. Another hostile witness.
Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.
>hostile witness
It feels like you're running a shell game here by replacing actual names with 'hostile witness'.
You've only mentioned Josephus by name and I assume you mean to include your previous "Evidence" as hostile witnesses even after the accurate criticisms that were leveled against them.
>>872882
If I were foolish enough to say that nobody worshiped Dyonisios as god, then quoting someone worshiping Dyonisios as god would refute that, now, wouldn't it.
Just as every ancient historian in the area wrote of Jesus, save for Philo.
>>872888
And denying the past events happened due to your unbelief is mental illness.
>>872931
Does the e to the i mean Tacitus never wrote about Jesus at all? No, that would be foolish, wouldn't it.
All four historians are hostile witnesses of the existence of Jesus Christ.
>>872931
To say that Josephus is an hostile witness of Jesus shows this Christian is completely ignorant of his own theology. Josephus and Jesus toe the exact same theological line: Daniel prophecies are on going and what is written in the Gospels and Josephus' works is ''proof'' of that. Christians didn't copy all those tedious Josephus books just for fun. Without Josephus there is no Christianity.
>>872966
>Without Josephus there is no Christianity.
Thank you for making yourself look the fool, so I don't have to.
>>872949
>If I were foolish enough to say that nobody worshiped Dyonisios as god
Nobody said there were no Christians, only no material Jesus.
R-e-a-d-i-n-g c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n
>Just as every ancient historian in the area
That's quite preposterous, as nearly all ancient historians' works are lost to us. But please go on and use your magic praying power to open a telepathic line to your god and ask him what they wrote down.
>>872952
>And denying the past events happened due to your unbelief is mental illness.
I doubt you're a doctor and thus qualified to detect mental illness. You're obviously not a scholar, nor familiar with the evidence, or should I say the lack of, as to believe than Jesus-Christ ever existed
>>872958
>All four historians are hostile witnesses of the existence of Jesus Christ.
And how do you know that? You ever ask them? There is absolutely no reason to believe that. Your christian persecution complex is showing.
>>872958
>Does the e to the i mean Tacitus never wrote about Jesus at all? No, that would be foolish, wouldn't it.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
There is only one reference to Jesus Christ in his annals.
That single reference is Chrstus.
It is given context by whether the worshippers are refered to as either Christians or Chrestians.
If they are Chrestians (as in the original, supposedly unaltered document) then Tacitus never wrote about Jesus at all.
What would the imperative even be for him to write about Christ if the general narrative explaining the lack of contemporary sources for Jesus is that he's an uninteresting pleb that only gained traction later?
>All four historians are hostile witnesses of the existence of Jesus Christ.
Only two mention Jesus Christ as having existed (Because you can totally have worshippers even if the object of worship does not exist).
One is Tacitus.
The other is the Talmud.
Unless, as I mentioned, you are playing a shell game with your evidence to elicit confusion on what your sources are.
>>872994
If there are Christians, there is a Christ.
Did you ever take any logic classes, at all, ever?
And no, it does not take a doctor to see someone who's insane enough to believe they can deny historical events by their unbelief.
>>872997
Yes, let's invent another completely similar group who followed Chrest by flossing five times a day.
kek
You guys are idiots.
>>873002
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn7TEoA9ark
>>872973
Josephus is the only first-century ''historian'' to write about Jesus. Josephus ''proved'' that Jesus was ''right'' to prophecy the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the generation of ''wicked'' Jews. Our knowledge and chronology of first-century Judea is based on a single author. Guess who? Josephus. Keep projecting m8, you just don't know what you're talking about.
>>873013
You forgot to add in huge print
IF THE ENTIRE BIBLE DID NOT EXIST
>>873002
>If there are Christians, there is a Christ.
>Did you ever take any logic classes, at all, ever?
Obviously you didn't. First line is a syllogism, and quite a specious one at that. Here's another you'll like
If there are pastafarians, there is a flying spaghetti monster.
All hail is noodle appendage.
>>873027
Not history. Christians pretend to have a religion based on historical events, but they need historical validation outside the bible to do so. Hence Josephus. So let me says it again. Without Josephus, there is no Christianity. This statement does not negate the importance of the bible my logic-impaired friend.
>>873037
IF THE ENTIRE BIBLE DID NOT EXIST
kek
Go ahead and pick out anything in the bible that's not "historical", sport. Anything at all.
>>873028
Did you just deny your own made up god?
Do you think other people's made up gods are no less foolish than the FSM?
>>873039
You don't know how to read do you? Or you're trolling me, nobody can be so dumb.
>>873037
No, we really don't. We just have fedoras throwing out the entire bible demanding snippets from much less reliable and much less accurate sources, so that they can then deny them too.
Fedoras, you do not get to judge the bible.
The bible judges you.
>>873046
Still waiting for all of those false historical facts from the bible, champ.
>>873042
>Did you just deny your own made up god?
I did not invent the FSM, nor deny him, nor believe in him. There's a lack of evidence, just like for Jesus-Christ.
>Do you think other people's made up gods are no less foolish than the FSM?
I'm afraid I don't build in my own spare time a power ranking of ridiculous gods. But the water-walking Jewish zombie that is his own father and son called Jesus is quite ridiculous IMO.
>>873002
What is this weird logic?
It is totally possible that Christians can exist without Christ.
All it takes to be able to believe in Christ is for someone to say Christ existed and detail his life and lessons.
He does not need to have ever existed for some new person to believe in Christ.
And that belief can spread like wildfire if others can convince new members.
I think there's some random cargo cult that believes in a person called John Frum. Clearly this John Frum must have existed because he has followers.
>>873004
Why are you throwing this strawman and ad hominem my way?
Is it because you have no ground to stand on?
Christ is distinct from Chrest.
More importantly being one vowel removed does not mean they were completely similiar.
>>873047
Read your Church fathers, and learns how you're wrong. Also an inanimate object like a book can't judge people, it doesn't have the necessary cognitive capabilities.
>>873055
I like how you change the subject when you know you're wrong.
Pilate is identified as procurator in the bible, we found a monument stating he was prefect of Judea, not procurator. A prefect being bossed around by the jewish underclasses is completely ludicrous. There is no historical proof of prisoner-releasing on Passover. Romans were killers, not social-democrats, they didn't believe in rehabilitation. The Sanhedrin doesn't convene at night. I could go on and on and on. But only the trial of Jesus, as you see, is fraught with historical inconsistencies. There are books that have been written on this subject, I suggest you go read them (if you have the intellectual capacity, which I doubt)
>>873060
There is no lack of evidence for Jesus.
You're just an idiot.
>>873090
Oh, but it does. You'll find out. One day, nothing will matter but what is in the book. And the book. And the books.
Still waiting for all of those historical errors in the bible you're so sure about. Oh, what's that? You mention Pilate? And yet, there is now evidence that the bible was right on Pilate, isn't there.
There is historical proof of releasing a prisoner on Passover; it's in the bible.
The Romans crucified Jesus, so no social-democrats there.
The Sanhedrin convened illegally at night to hide what they were doing from the populace; in fact, they violated dozens of their own laws in that illegal trial.
Oh, what's that? You're a Jew, and cannot believe that the Sanhedrin would violate their own laws in order to murder an innocent man?
Well, I guess you don't believe Moses and the prophets, then, do you Chaim.
>>873114
Ad-hominem attacks are not evidence. Just give up. The lack of evidence has been demonstrated in this thread.
>>873090
Wow, this thing called "Google" is really awesome! You should try it!
1. Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners who had been incarcerated for crimes other than murder. 'he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.' (Antiquities 20.9.3).
2. In the Mishnah (Jewish oral tradition, written in around AD 300) it records that “they may slaughter the passover lamb for one….whom they have promised to bring out of prison”. Now its not exactly clear but this certainly records a prisoner being released specifically at Passover.
3.A piece of papyrus also records a Roman governor of Egypt saying: “You were worthy of scourging but I gave you to the crowds.” (P.Flor 61, c. AD 85).
4. Pliny the younger from one of his early second century letters also has something important to note on such practices and who had responsibility to do so, "It was asserted, however, that these people were released upon their petition to the proconsuls, or their lieutenants; which seems likely enough, as it is improbable any person should have dared to set them at liberty without authority" (Epistles 10.31).
5. The author William Lane states ‘There is….. a parallel in Roman law which indicates that an imperial magistrate could pardon and acquit individual prisoners in response to the shouts of the populace’ (The Gospel according to Mark, p. 553).
Gee, those all sound very similar to Pilate releasing a prisoner at Passover.
>>873126
Only a fool thinks that a "lack of evidence" can be demonstrated, and only an utter fool would say that is the case here.
You are guilty.
You will not be found innocent by your ignorance of the Law.
>>873121
>Oh, but it does. You'll find out. One day, nothing will matter but what is in the book. And the book. And the books.
The life of a believer must be so daunting.
>Still waiting for all of those historical errors in the bible you're so sure about. Oh, what's that? You mention Pilate? And yet, there is now evidence that the bible was right on Pilate, isn't there.
Are you ok m8? Did you forget to take your pills today?
>There is historical proof of releasing a prisoner on Passover; it's in the bible.
The bible says it's true. What proof is there of that? The bible says so. Nice circular logic you've got there
>The Romans crucified Jesus, so no social-democrats there.
Reading comprehension, do you know what that means? Romans don't release prisoners, especially insurgents like Barrabas. That's the historical error you dimwitted Galilean.
>The Sanhedrin convened illegally at night to hide what they were doing from the populace; in fact, they violated dozens of their own laws in that illegal trial.
Illogical. They're all roman collaborators, they don't have to hide to do their dirty work.
And I'm atheist of Roman catholic stock. Your anti-Semitic straw man won't work here my deranged friend.
>>873121
>Oh, what's that? You're a Jew, and cannot believe that the Sanhedrin would violate their own laws in order to murder an innocent man?
You'd think it'd be weird that only the bible ever mentions all these broken laws.
No jews at the time were outraged that some worthless pleb was apparently worth breaking most of their laws for (Especially since false prophets weren't exactly uncommon).
It's plausible that no non-Jew gives a fuck about Jews but you'd think that the Jews themselves would give a fuck about what other Jews are doing.
The bible doesn't even draw attention to them, it just blankly states what happened as if it's perfectly normal.
Even when Matthew corrects the poor knowledge present in Mark when adapting it into his account he doesn't draw attention to it.
"Don't trust those crafty Jews, they'll break all their laws to kill some totally worthless pleb" Vs "Someone involved in writing the Gospels or spouting the oral traditions that formed their foundation was unfamiliar with Jewish law".
>>873137
Google sucks
>Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners
Not Passover. Try again
>Now its not exactly clear
Quite an understatement
>You were worthy of scourging but I gave you to the crowds
What was his offense? Barrabas was an insurgent and murderer according to the Bible. This means certain death if he's in the hands of a roman magistrate
>4. Pliny the younger....
Again, what was the crime? Not insurgency I warrant.
>The author William Lane states....
Not for rebellion against the Roman State
Gee, that sounds like a desperate christian trying historicize a clearly fictive story.
>>873141
Damn you're stupid. The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. You failed to present evidence of Jesus' material existence. This has been amply shown in this thread. As for metaphysical judicial courts, please lodge a complaint against me if this make you feel good. I'll be waiting
>>873176
None of your examples were errors, and all of them were refuted.
The bible is true because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, Who is the Spirit of Truth.
I gave you 5 examples of Romans releasing prisoners. Maybe read the responses with your head outside of your anus.
They had to hide what they were doing from THE JEWS, not from the Romans. The people loved Jesus. They had to kill Him, quick, or the people would crown Him king, the Romans would move in, and THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS.
See, the Jews back then would rather Jesus die for His views, than they die for theirs.
And just like them, you cannot recognize your Messiah either.
You're a Pharisee whether you're a Jew or a Roman Catholic. It works the exact same way. I post what you ARE, not what you WANT TO BE.
>>873212
Who else would, and how would those documents survive 2000 years?
>>873226
See? You don't seek evidence to make sense of the world.
You treasure your unbelief, and throw all evidence into the trash, where you live.
NO ROMAN WOULD DO THAT!
5 Romans do that.
NUH UH!
>>873226
There is no burden of proof for a lack of evidence, you fucking nitwit.
>>870812
I think he was reliable when he said that Nero blamed Christian sects for the burning of Rome.
He presents no evidence that Christ actually existed and wasn't a contemporary, so issues of reliability in that regard are a bit moot.
>>873233
>THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS
By this statement, you have shown that you don't understand anything about Roman-controlled Judea. The Roman authorities controlled the Jewish priesthood. The Jewish underclasses hated them already. The ''people'' didn't crown anybody king, your political views of Antiquity are tainted by a modern bias. And pharisee are gone since the destruction of the second Temple. It seems you're part of one the loony sects of protestants, who dirty the christian name by a very deficient interpretation of the bible. It's because of people like you that the church didn't want the plebs to read the bible or translate it in a vernacular language.
>>873297
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus--Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Gee, I see "Jesus" in there. So I guess you're fucked, huh.
>>873300
The Roman Catholic Church doesn't want people to read the bible so that they can tell people what the bible says, and means. And exert complete and utter control over all of those people, from cradle to grave, and beyond.
It's foul, evil, blasphemous, and an abomination before God.
John 11
V-48, "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation."
See, I have the bible as the foundation for what I post. You literally have your ass. You pull things out of your ass, sniff them, and then post them on the board. And like shit, they stink up the place.
>>873261
There's a burden of proof on those who state something. You state that Jesus exists/existed in the material world. The burden is on you.
>>873297
That's Tacitus you're referring to.
>>873257
>You don't seek evidence to make sense of the world.
I do. It is you who shelter your ignorance by reading a single book, and thus you interpret it very badly. Do you think you're convincing anybody with your Trump-ish manners?
>>873303
Just because he mentions Jesus doesn't mean he existed.
>He presents no evidence that Christ actually existed and wasn't a contemporary, so issues of reliability in that regard are a bit moot
He doesn't say he didn't mention Christ, just that he is unable to show evidence for his claims.
The Passage is also obviously interpolated.
I mean holy shit.
Look at all that overt shilling from someone who didn't instantly convert.
>>873314
kek
Look up burden of proof, and try not to be so gullible. There is no burden of proof to prove a negative. Dummy.
I posted 5 instances where Rome pardoned prisoners, and you stick to your "HERP DERP THE ROMANS WOULD NEVER PARDON ANYONE", despite the entire thumbs up/thumbs down thing.
You should read a book. Any book. A book. Once.
Jesus mythers are actually worse at this than Holocaust Deniers.
>>873310
>The Roman Catholic Church doesn't want people to read the bible so that they can tell people what the bible says, and means. And exert complete and utter control over all of those people, from cradle to grave, and beyond.
Yes, but they invented that book, so they could dispose it as they please IMO
>It's foul, evil, blasphemous, and an abomination before God.
Now, how would you know that, you're speaking with God friend? You should see a doctor if you're hearing voices in your head.
>I have the bible as the foundation for what I post
A foundation that you do not understand, like every other protestant.
>>873303
>Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus--Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now go read the two following stories and try to interpret the whole.
>>873335
Mad as fuck because no matter how hard you try Jesus will never be real.
>>873334
>There is no burden of proof to prove a negative. Dummy.
The whole debate is moot, because history doesn't use a null hypothesis.
>>873334
Mate I think you're messing this shit up in this reply chain.
The material existence of Christ is a positive claim.
As such the burden of proof rests on the person providing the positive claim.
The existence of Christ is not a negative claim.
>>873348
Also this more or less.
Unrelated to that first point but still relating to your post:
>"HERP DERP THE ROMANS WOULD NEVER PARDON ANYONE"
As far as I can understand that isn't the point being made, rather the point being made is that there is no passover tradition of freeing a criminal and that's what his point is about.
I guess.
>>873347
Mad as fuck because no matter how hard you try, you will never be as good at history as vile anti-semites.
>>873361
Except for the bible and another source, sure.
kek
>>873371
There is abundant historical proof, enough in this thread to show any sane person how mad you are.
>>873364
Jesus existed based on what?
>>873334
>There is no burden of proof to prove a negative.
Indeed. You're the one trying to prove a positive statement: that Jesus existed in the material world. The burden is still on you. A few of us disposed easily your attempts, as there is no proof the guy ever existed. Try again, or even better, give up.
>I posted 5 instances where Rome pardoned prisoners
You took five very different quotes and tried to mash it up into a very flimsy attempt to prove something that goes against all historical documentation: Romans didn't spare insurgents on Passover when asked by a mob. Never
>despite the entire thumbs up/thumbs down thing
You're mixing everything up. That' happened in gladiator shows. Not 1st century Judea judicial relations between roman authorities and Jewish subjects
>You should read a book. Any book. A book. Once.
Projection if I ever saw some
>>873335
No
>>873371
Yes, you're more insane than Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, and the Exodusdidn'thappen people.
You're dumber than Stormfront.
>>873371
>Romans didn't spare insurgents when asked by a mob. Never
Your own standards of historical proof make this claim untenable. You cannot establish that the Romans ever encountered insurgents, ever, nevermind any sort of general policy towards them.
Jesus mythicists remind me of the Chappelle's show jury selection sketch describing the evidence he'd need to convict R. Kelly.
I can't find it on youtube but it's at 1:45 in http://www.cc.com/video-clips/5uemlz/chappelle-s-show-celebrity-trial-jury-selection---uncensored
>>873377
Nope, not at all. But keep thinking that if this make you sleep at night.
>>873378
Argument to the best explanation.
The mythologization of Jesus existed based on what?
>>873384
You really can't imagine that someone would actually be involved in this discussion for reasons other than their emotional investment.
That is really common with Mythers, and really sad and telling.
>>873380
You're not qualified to say this, as I doubt you're a MD. But keep slinging ad-hominem attacks on an anonymous board if this amuse you.
>>873381
>You cannot establish that the Romans ever encountered insurgents, ever
You misinterpret my standards you dishonest christian. Yes, Romans encountered insurgents, this has been established in historical documentation and archeological proofs.
>>873384
kek
delete post
delete post
delete post
>>873405
>What does thumbs up mean, the post. By an idiot.
>>873403
This is painful for christians, so what? Disinformation must combated on an history board.. Sparing somebody's superstition to spare his feelings is a very SJW thing to do.
>>873405
> this has been established in historical documentation
Oh, this is where it gets fun. Which documentation?
>>873397
Based on the fact that there is no reference to the gospel Jesus in Paul's authentic epistles.
>>873428
Question: If this is just Christians that believe this, shouldn't Jesus Mythicism have always been mainstream near eastern academic opinion in East Asia and South Asia, and have achieved mainstream academic credibility in Europe and America in the last 100 years?
>>873434
No, that's not what I asked for. I asked for evidence that the mythologization of Jesus occurred. Do you have any contemporary historical reference to it?
>>873409
Made a typo, I corrected it. This means I respect you enough to enunciate coherent thoughts. A shame you can't do the same.
>>873413
>What does thumbs up mean
Historical documentation is unanimous. Emperors and game organizers used the thumb up/down gesture in gladiator shows, not in a trial for colonial subjects. Try again, or just don't, you obviously don't know anything about this subject
>>873439
Nearly all scholars in the world haven't put much thought in the subject. There is also a political cost to pay if you go against this Jesus myth. Plenty of people lost their career, their live hood, some were even imprisoned, like Bruno Bauer. But most people just don't care. Paul Veyne wrote a great essay about this subject (Did the Greeks ever believe in their myths?) He states than most people don't even ask themselves if they believe in myths/the probity of a politician/the moon landing/the paternity of their child/any example of your choice.
>>873467
So your argument is that the entire field of Near Eastern Studies just really doesn't care a whole lot about the classical near east?
>>873485
No, my argument is that nearly the entire field of Near Eastern Studies just doesn't really care about whether Jesus existed or not.
>>873496
Couldn't the same argument be applied to any other historical figure?
>>873442
All evidence of it may have not survived through the middle ages but what about the fact that early Christianity mirrors a bunch of mystery religions of the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
>>873531
>All evidence of it may have not survived through the middle ages
So you have none. Even less evidence then there is of a physical Jesus of Nazareth.
>but what about the fact that early Christianity mirrors a bunch of mystery religions of the past.
Still does nothing to establish the positive claim that someone created a fictionalized account of Jesus.
>>873511
No, the same can be applied to every other mythical character like Romulus, Ulysses, Buddha, etc.
>>873550
The whole gospel is a fictionalized account of Jesus, whether he existed or not.
>>873619
You have no evidence to support that.
>>873604
But you are claiming that persons universally accepted as historical can be mythical, and it is simply lack of interest by academics that keeps them that way.
And, for example, I've never encountered any historian who was all that concerned with whether or not Brian Boruma existed, or Hannibal, or Otto von Bismark. So all of them are open to suspicion of being obvious mythological figures.
>>873639
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8q7_snglWI
>>869463
I'm not Christian, but yes he existed whether atheists like it or not.
>>873661
Based on what?
>>869463
It's really not in dispute that he was real, what's in dispute is whether he was a or the messiah.
>>873668
bunch of arguments on wikipedia, just go read the article on historical jesus
pretty much, nobody, not even jews deny his existence. josephus was a jewish historian who didn't deny his existence only a few decades after he supposedly lived. if he was made up and jews didn't like him, they would have gone "guys, guys, he's not even fukken real"
tons of other arguments but you can just google this shit.
>>873693
Josephus also thought Moses existed, he wrote what he wrote in the 90sCE.
>>869463
The one from the Bible? No.
>>873693
>Josephus
>Wikipedia
>>870174
He was taken to heaven while alive, up to the third heaven.
>>873714
Here we go with the Holocaust deniers spreading their filth to Moses deniers.
>>870174
He was beaten to death.
Then raised.
>>870183
There always are. People like you have zero logical skills though. I say "Creation infers a Creator", and you say "nuh uh" or the fedora favorite, "prove it!".
>>873853
Accept it's accepted that Moses never existed in scholarship.
Catholics and such people are insane maniacs and demons, they think having sex is evil, they think that sweet boipussy is evil, they think receiving anal is evil, they think guzzling cum is evil, they think showering in vaginal fuild is evil.
They think murdering your enemies and raping their 2year old daughters is evil.
They think you have to be humble, to raise your butt before your enemies.
This is satanic doctrine, made up to have humans behave like idiots and even worship the evil one.
But as for god?
Yeah, you have very fun parts in your body, use them however. Wanna steal? I guess so, pillage them satanbois, should be fun, and rape their lolis. They are worse than trash, at least trash was useful once.
Yeah, doing fun things is ok, no matter how "degenerate" they view you. Chances are it's an aberrant abomination that's calling you degenerate, going against natural impulses like licking pre-cum.
So yeah, you're abominations.
>>869463
There's a compelling argument that the entire new testament was conceived by the Romans as propaganda in an attempt to snuff out Jewish zealots that preached violence against Rome, and that "Jesus" was actually based on Roman emperor Titus Flavius, and his campaign to pacify Judea.
There are many similarities between Josephus's history of the Roman war in Judea and the new testament, and the actions of Titus Flavius are very similar to those of "Jesus".
Regardless, even if he was real, he was just an ordinary dude like everybody else, and no more the "son of god" than you or I.
>>873639
>But you are claiming that persons universally accepted as historical can be mythical
No, you're again misconstruing my argument. I'm saying that most people, scholar or not, don't ask themselves whether they believe in anything, including somebody's existence. This question is even less asked of people like Hannibal or Bismark, because mythological activities like water-walking or raising dead people or starting a world-religion aren't ascribed to them. You could ask yourself this question if you care to, and answer it. I haven't studied the primary evidence of the Second Punic war or the Second Reich's formation, so I won't. But I don't see how these could happen without Big H and Old Otto, while the birth of Christianity can very easily come from a Jesus-idea federating a community decades after his supposed life and death. This theory has at least the merit to correspond with the first material evidence of Christianity's existence. There is the first artistic representation of Jesus, pic related, and Flavia Domitilla's catacombs, both from Rome dated late 1st century/early 2nd century. Nothing from Judea at all until way later.
>>873878
Not only is that false, it's useless information.
The Jews have celebrated the Passover faithfully throughout history, for the past, what, 3500 years, each and every year.
The Passover Moses instituted, on their way out of captivity in Egypt, as documented in the bible.
You atheists can circlejerk all you want about muh evidence, and muh scholarship, but you don't get your own facts.
>>874657
Um, Jesus is not a horse.
>>874680
Where's your evidence that Moses existed? The Exodus didn't even happen, you retard.
>>874685
That's a donkey-head Jesus, a common trope of primitive Christianity. There's a man praying to him, according to the text. Here's a clearer representation.
>>874680
>The Passover Moses instituted, on their way out of captivity in Egypt, as documented in the bible.
>>That's completely unsubstantiated by any archaeological evidence at all.
No record of the Ancient Egyptians enslaving, or freeing, Jews exists anywhere outside of the old testaments.
>>874700
The entire book of Exodus in the bible suffices. The Ipuper papyrus is nice. The monument Solomon built on the other side of Alaqaba is neat. The chariot wheels at the bottom of Alaqaba are interesting.
And the Transfiguration could not have happened without Moses.
What do you have again? "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"?
Enjoy your logical fallacy!
>>874680
It can easily be an ascribed mythical character after the fact, lots of cultures do that.
>>874680
Yet you choose your own facts all the time. irregardless of the mountains of evidence that your wrong
>>874727
High school debate team terms and tactics aside, there isn't any evidence to support the existence of Moses, or any group of Jews held as slaves in Egypt.
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that clearly shows the Egyptians using paid labor for large scale construction projects, like the pyramids.
Perhaps the Jews substituted Egypt for Babylon for some reason?
>>874703
that´s gnostic
mainstream christians used the fish sign
>>874742
There is absolutely no reason to think this graffito is Gnostic. And it still is the earliest artistic representation of Jesus ever. A very important proof of the existence of Christians in Rome in the servant's aisle of the Imperial Palace no less.
>>874791
I'd accept donkey jesus as my ass and savior
>>869463
U U U U
>>869463
Yes but horribly misinterpreted and hyped like god emperor.
